The proper role of government in health care? Try "none" on for size

Susan Nielsen from The Oregonian has been writing some rather absurd pieces as of late and cannot formulate an argument too well.  Not to say that I am any better, but have disagreed with much of what she has had to say as of late.  The following is in response to her latest editorial "Birth-control fight shows folly of federal mandates."

Susan Nielsen makes some rather broad assumptions (“Birth-control fight shows folly of federal mandates”), and she is largely incorrect.  Concluding the piece she writes that the “mandate debate is one [President Obama] can't and shouldn't win,” yet Ms. Nielsen's writing over the last weeks demonstrates that she is firmly straddling the fence on this issue, having done an about-face on the practicality of the president's mandates, yet firmly ensconced within the left-liberal crowd and the pseudo-morality they peddle to the American public.  She is but 50% correct:  Dr. Obama can indeed win this debate, yet Ms. Nielsen is right when she says he should not.

First, she says the “Catholic bishops may be wrong about birth control.”  The bishops are correct in their position and “about the rest of this month's fight.”  Ms. Nielsen may not agree—and that is her right—yet to say the bishops, relying on 2,000 years of tradition (at the very least), are wrong, and that her view—extant since the ancient days of the radical 1960s—is correct, smarts just a hair.

Next, she claims the debate is “unpalatable” because Catholics condemn contraception and that Republicans are “bloviating about religious liberty.”  Far from bloviating, religious liberty is exactly what this debate centers upon, whether Ms. Nielsen likes it or not.  The First Amendment explicitly forbids the Congress—the law-making branch of the federal government—from making law “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  The Constitution designed the federal government to be limited in its scope, and not meddle in the affairs of the people or their chosen religion.

Granted, Ms. Nielsen is simply parroting the left-liberal talking points in order to discredit the genuine argument of traditionalists and conservatives alike.  The Left believes that it knows best and entrusts government to do its bidding (as long as it has control of the institution).  While Ms. Nielsen may think it wise for President Obama “to change the conversation,” the hope is likely for a semantic change rather than a substantive one.  For this brand of liberalism relies heavily on emotion and feelings rather than thought and reflection.

She asserts that birth control “is indeed a basic part of good health care.”  By what measure?  Her own?  How about stop with this and other such euphemistic language and show some courage?  It is quite clear that Ms. Nielsen believes in that induced abortion is some sort of human right.  A sober look at the situation would show that it is quite the opposite.  We are unable to ask the 50 million-plus innocent human lives taken since Roe v. Wade if they believe their right to life or liberty has been exercised properly, but there is no denying that those rights were stripped entirely.

Finally, Ms. Nielsen mentions state-run “coordinated care organizations” and a “regulated online marketplace.”  These are precisely the problems with health care in this country in the first place.  The government needs to get out of the game altogether—nationally and at the state-level.  When the government interferes with pricing—in this case with more regulation—it destroys the marketplace and drives costs perpetually upward, completely phasing-out many folks of modest means from the insurance markets and, as a result, decent health care.

But, they say, if we centralize health care, it would be “affordable?”  Perhaps, to the end user, but the already over-taxed public would have to pick up this burden unless the federal government inflates its way to “affordability.”  Neither approach is sensible or wise.  Rather, it is disastrous for both the nation and its people.

Why not deflate the cost of health care and health insurance by eliminating government and its mandates from the industry entirely?  Poor people would still get care, the middle class could afford to choose insurance that meets its needs without having programs foisted upon them by commissars in Salem or Washington, and the 1% would be able to spend its dollars wisely and with more discretion to create the jobs Ms. Nielsen advocates for.

Ms. Nielsen's ideas are not “promising” as she would like us to believe.  Her idea of the “proper federal role” is incorrect.  That is not simply my opinion, but indisputable based on the American tradition and our Constitution, something she chooses to ignore.